Philip Hammond, the Defence Secretary, will reveal the scheme to build a new nuclear deterrent in a move which will cause tensions with the Liberal Democrats.

He will announce a deal ordering nuclear reactors for a new class of submarines to replace the current Vanguard fleet, which carries Britains Trident nuclear arsenal.

The decision is the most public statement yet that the Government is committed to a full-scale replacement of Trident - something opposed by the Lib Dems, who want a cheaper way of maintaining nuclear weapons.

Mr Hammond will say that a Rolls-Royce plant at Raynesway, in Derby, will be given the order to build the reactors, and that the Ministry of Defence will fund an 11-year refit of the plant.

The contract will create 300 jobs and many more in the factorys supply chain.

Yep...Greeneville had some VIPs on board...CO wanted to show off and performed an emergency blow to surface without doing a full 360 visual check of the surface before going deep to prep for the maneuver.

Million to one odds that he would surface right under the Japanese boat...but if he would have done his job properly, the incident wouldn’t have happened.

Actually, I have some sympathy for the idea. Britain is broke and is cutting its military budget as part of a general slash in public spending to cope with the deficit, would it be better to have 4 SSBNs or a cheaper, maybe cruise missile based deterrent and better funding for Britain’s conventional military (especially the Navy, which is woefully understrength in the number of surface ships)?
Ideally, we’d be able to afford the 4 SSBNs we’ve always had, but we aren’t living in ideal circumstances, and compromises have to be made. The whole point about a nuclear deterrent is that it is there to act as a deterrent, not to actually be used. If it had to be used, we’d all be dead anyway.
If we mounted our nukes on cruise missiles, their range and penetratation capability would be more limited, but in the grand scheme of things, I can’t see how it would make the difference between a country deciding to invade or use WMDs on Britain. Even if there was a fairly effective means of shooting the cruise missiles down before they reached their target, you’d have to be mad to run the risk of a nuclear confrontation on the hope that you’d be able to get them all...

There was also a nuclear artillery shell called the W33. 2,000 were produced from 1957 to 1965. They were meant to be fired from the M110 howitzer and had 4 available yields(0.5 KT, 5 KT, 10 KT, 40 KT). It was retired in 1992.

Is that Crockett mounted on an old jeep or a Mule (for runner of the ATV). When I was a kid I got to go to Armed Forces Day celebrations at Andrews Air Force Base. All sorts of neat stuff, Constellations with radar domes, Thunderbirds flying F100’s, simulated strafing runs, large parachute drops followed by a tank assault and ounce they even touched off a short range missile a Honest John I think. What a show.

14
posted on 06/16/2012 5:14:56 PM PDT
by fella
("As it was before Noah, so shall it be again.")

I acknowledge all of this, but as I said, we can’t afford the best so we have to be more realistic. Nobody is going to be crazy enough to risk putting Britain in the position of firing nuclear cruise missiles at them, because even if they are much easier to shoot down, would you want to press ahead with a WMD strike on Britain on the confident hope that you would be able to stop each and every one of those retaliatory cruise missiles?

In theory, yes, in practice, with our limited resources, I’d rather we had more surface ships, helicopters and soldiers. These are the things that would actually be used in the future. The nuclear deterrent is just a deterrent, and it only needs to be good enough to make a hostile nation fear the consequences of launching a WMD attack on Britain...

In the 2011 Fiscal Year the UK Central Government spent £512.2 billion. Only £35.4 billion of that went to the military. The major budget items are pensions, heath care and welfare. The is what drives the public debt.

While that is true, it’s only half the picture. Once the budget cuts begin to show through in the current year figures, you will see that Defence has been cut less than most other spending departments. It’s losing only 8%, whereas many are losing 25% and some as much as 40%. It certainly isn’t the case that Defence is losing out in order to keep benefits spending intact.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.